query_log_pattern

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention important behaviors such as the case-insensitive substring matching (which is only in the schema), the support for multiline stack trace reconstruction via lineStartPattern, and the exact output format or ordering. The phrase 'top N' is vague about what ordering is applied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It states the core functionality in 13 words and is easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main purpose but omits significant context such as the lineStartPattern behavior for multiline logs and the absence of an output schema means the return format is under-specified. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, more detail would be needed for full completeness, but the schema mitigates some gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema thoroughly documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; 'field/value pattern' loosely maps to the field and value parameters, but does not clarify syntax or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Filter' and identifies the resource 'NDJSON log file' and the action 'by field/value pattern, return top N matching entries.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_log_schema or detect_error_anomalies, which have different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies a filtering use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or name any sibling tools, so the usage context is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.